2017 (3) TMI 1711 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court revises trial court's dismissal, restores Money Suit proceedings stressing procedural compliance

Sri Mohini Gohain Baruah & another Versus Smt. Putali Gohain Baruah & another

The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing the suit. The proceedings of Money Suit No. 5/2015 were restored, ... Dismissal of suit after framing preliminary issue of whether the suit is maintainable in law or not - Money Suit - the petitioners had instituted a suit for claiming damages/compensation of ₹ 50,00,000/- for suffering defamation - Held that:- The inevitable conclusion of this court is that there being no codified law for defamation or in respect of tort, a person can avail civil remedy under the four corners of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the rules of evidence as prescribed under the provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 would govern such suits. Moreover, the absolute privilege under Evidence Act, 1872 can only be found from the provisions of section 121 to 129 thereof. The foreign law, being not applicable to India, presumption of 'absolute privilege' cannot be made outside the scope of the provisions of the Evidence Act by referring to English law on defamation. This court is not inclined to accept that statements made before authorities like Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur would be a defence of absolute privilege as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent. The court may postpone the settlement of other issues until after the issues relating to jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. However, in the present case, the suit was pending at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff's side and, as such, the hearing of the suit had begun after framing of issues and, as such, there cannot be any further occasion to postpone settlement of other issues. Revision allowed. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the suit.2. Cause of action.3. Applicability of the defense of qualified privilege in defamation cases.4. Jurisdiction of the court to frame preliminary issues.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Suit:The petitioners challenged the order of the trial court that dismissed their defamation suit on the grounds of maintainability. The trial court had framed a preliminary issue on whether the suit was maintainable in law, concluding that the objection petitions filed by the defendants before the Land Acquisition Board could not be termed as defamatory or a civil wrong. The High Court found that the trial court erred in framing this issue without specific averments in the written statement detailing why the suit was not maintainable. The High Court emphasized that vague recitals are insufficient for framing such issues.2. Cause of Action:The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that 'no cause of action arises.' The High Court observed that if there was no cause of action, the trial court should have invoked Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint, allowing the petitioners to present a fresh plaint. The High Court found that the trial court's approach was incorrect, as dismissing the suit deprived the petitioners of their right to refile.3. Applicability of the Defense of Qualified Privilege in Defamation Cases:The trial court held that the defendants were exercising their legal rights by filing objection petitions and that such actions could not be deemed defamatory. The High Court disagreed, stating that the English law on defamation, including the defense of absolute privilege, does not apply in India following the repeal of Section 2 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court emphasized that defamation cases in India should be governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the Evidence Act, 1872, without importing principles from English law.4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Frame Preliminary Issues:The High Court referred to Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to dispose of cases on preliminary issues of law. However, since the trial had already begun with the plaintiff's evidence, the High Court found that the trial court should not have framed and decided the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue. The High Court concluded that the trial court acted with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing the suit. The proceedings of Money Suit No. 5/2015 were restored, and the parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, for further instructions. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that issues of law and fact are properly addressed within the framework of Indian legal statutes.